Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Analog vs modern Digital recording

Last response: in Home Audio
Share
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:48:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

It used to be said that even though digital recording is cleaner and
has certain advantages like no generation loss, tape recording gives a
warmer sound. Some people listen to CDs and say that it does not sound
as good as a record. Does this still apply to modern day hard disk
recording vs 2 inch tape? Insights?

Thanks,

Lewis
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:12:34 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Lewis Lang wrote:
> It used to be said that even though digital recording is cleaner and
> has certain advantages like no generation loss, tape recording gives a
> warmer sound. Some people listen to CDs and say that it does not sound
> as good as a record. Does this still apply to modern day hard disk
> recording vs 2 inch tape? Insights?

1) Digital provides a power that has taken time to master with respect
to creating good-sounding recordings.

2) Analog tape can change sound through tape saturation in a way that
we like. But there are other (digital) ways to record/create sound
that we like. The trick is to work on finding them.

3) Tools in the hands of a hack will still result in junk. IMHO it
is possible to create a quality sound on inexpensive digital
equipment, but it takes skill, just like analog equipment use.

4) Quantegy, the last U.S. manufacturer of analog tape, announced
their bankruptcy recently. Analog tape use has fallen off
significantly in recent years, and will likely continue to do so.

http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/bth/2005010...

We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not. Better
practice.

--
Gary R. Hook
________________________________________________________________________
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:12:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Gary,

> We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not. Better
practice. <

Great post. Those were all excellent points.

--Ethan
Related resources
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:12:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

One obvious thing is that regardless of which medium one were to choose,
it's still going to be a situation of learning how to use the tools for the
best results. No one, and I mean absolutely no one, should expect one to be
easy whilst the other is harder. Both are the end storage of techniques,
equipment and experience, and while those things don't change, the way you
would work in one differs significantly from the other, unless a hybrid
methodology is developed.

And each has their time constraining demands or possibilities, such as
splicing tape for edits, or in digital, the desire to try every fricking
combination of tracks, multiple tracks, this edit, that edit, this plug,
that plug and in general basically refusing to make mixing decisions and
living with the overall strength of the song and it's performance.

Today's digital editors, converters and even tactile surfaces make digital
the obvious choice for any long term involvement with audio. If one finds
more problems with digital than with analog, then probably they'll be
hooking up their horses to head to the store vainly searching for that one
last reel of 996.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Gary R. Hook" <noway@nospammers.net> wrote in message
news:6JoNd.37840$iC4.10339@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> Lewis Lang wrote:
> > It used to be said that even though digital recording is cleaner and
> > has certain advantages like no generation loss, tape recording gives a
> > warmer sound. Some people listen to CDs and say that it does not sound
> > as good as a record. Does this still apply to modern day hard disk
> > recording vs 2 inch tape? Insights?
>
> 1) Digital provides a power that has taken time to master with respect
> to creating good-sounding recordings.
>
> 2) Analog tape can change sound through tape saturation in a way that
> we like. But there are other (digital) ways to record/create sound
> that we like. The trick is to work on finding them.
>
> 3) Tools in the hands of a hack will still result in junk. IMHO it
> is possible to create a quality sound on inexpensive digital
> equipment, but it takes skill, just like analog equipment use.
>
> 4) Quantegy, the last U.S. manufacturer of analog tape, announced
> their bankruptcy recently. Analog tape use has fallen off
> significantly in recent years, and will likely continue to do so.
>
>
http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/bth/2005010...
>
> We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not. Better
> practice.
>
> --
> Gary R. Hook
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 4:57:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Lewis Lang wrote:
> It used to be said that even though digital recording is cleaner and
> has certain advantages like no generation loss, tape recording gives a
> warmer sound. Some people listen to CDs and say that it does not sound
> as good as a record. Does this still apply to modern day hard disk
> recording vs 2 inch tape? Insights?

Tape has distortions and limits that many find euphonic,
i.e. warm and pleasant, but if you want accuracy from which
to apply distortions and limits of your choosing later, use
digital.

Why does your followup line exclude most of the groups of
which you asked this question?


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 7:38:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

"Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:jbqdnd01ZovTz5vfRVn-tw@rcn.net...
> And each has their time constraining demands or possibilities, such as
> splicing tape for edits, or in digital, the desire to try every fricking
> combination of tracks, multiple tracks, this edit, that edit, this plug,
> that plug and in general basically refusing to make mixing decisions and
> living with the overall strength of the song and it's performance.

LOL!

My bane is the urge to keep polishing a turd instead of just cutting new
tracks.

Sean
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 8:26:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Ethan Winer <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
>Gary,
>
>> We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not. Better
>practice. <
>
>Great post. Those were all excellent points.

Coming into rec.audio.pro and asking about digital vs. analogue is sort
of like going into a bar and asking about Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
You won't learn very much, and you might very well get hurt in the process.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 10:45:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Analog has had a long time to mature, whereas digital is the bright, quirky,
young upstart. I wouldn't write the former off just yet, but it's decades
are numbered. e.g. better response = better sound.

Rick Hollett
"Gary R. Hook" <noway@nospammers.net> wrote in message
news:6JoNd.37840$iC4.10339@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
> Lewis Lang wrote:
>> It used to be said that even though digital recording is cleaner and
>> has certain advantages like no generation loss, tape recording gives a
>> warmer sound. Some people listen to CDs and say that it does not sound
>> as good as a record. Does this still apply to modern day hard disk
>> recording vs 2 inch tape? Insights?
>
> 1) Digital provides a power that has taken time to master with respect
> to creating good-sounding recordings.
>
> 2) Analog tape can change sound through tape saturation in a way that
> we like. But there are other (digital) ways to record/create sound
> that we like. The trick is to work on finding them.
>
> 3) Tools in the hands of a hack will still result in junk. IMHO it
> is possible to create a quality sound on inexpensive digital
> equipment, but it takes skill, just like analog equipment use.
>
> 4) Quantegy, the last U.S. manufacturer of analog tape, announced
> their bankruptcy recently. Analog tape use has fallen off
> significantly in recent years, and will likely continue to do so.
>
> http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/bth/2005010...
>
> We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not. Better
> practice.
>
> --
> Gary R. Hook
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
Anonymous
February 6, 2005 10:45:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

"rick hollett" wrote ...
> Analog has had a long time to mature, whereas digital is
> the bright, quirky, young upstart. I wouldn't write the former
> off just yet, but it's decades are numbered. e.g. better
> response = better sound.

With the media suppliers dead or on life-support, do you think
analog has even ONE decade left?
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 2:38:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,aus.hi-fi (More info?)

Harvey Gerst wrote:
> "C, TFM" <ctfm@yourisp.net> wrote:
>
> >kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote in
> >news:cu65i1$aeh$1@panix2.panix.com:
> >
> >> Ethan Winer <ethanw at ethanwiner dot com> wrote:
> >>>Gary,
> >>>
> >>>> We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not.
Better
> >>>practice. <
> >>>
> >>>Great post. Those were all excellent points.
> >>
> >> Coming into rec.audio.pro and asking about digital vs. analogue is
sort
> >> of like going into a bar and asking about Catholicism vs.
Protestantism.
> >> You won't learn very much, and you might very well get hurt in the
> >> process. --scott
>
> >Those guys in rec.audio.pro are a complete bunch of wankers anyway.
> >C.
>
> Yes, we're wankers, but no, we weren't "complete" - until you showed
up.


Why did this drivel show up on Aus.Hi-Fi?
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 7:21:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
> Coming into rec.audio.pro and asking about digital vs. analogue is sort
> of like going into a bar and asking about Catholicism vs. Protestantism.
> You won't learn very much, and you might very well get hurt in the process.

After my post, I was thinking that the OP was a troll since he
listed follow-ups to rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.equipment.35mm
(which I ignored). But I chose to give him the benefit of the doubt
and attempt to succinctly answer his question.

--
Gary R. Hook
________________________________________________________________________
Vocatus atque non vocatus deus aderit
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 7:47:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Richard Crowley wrote:
> With the media suppliers dead or on life-support, do you think analog
> has even ONE decade left?

Maybe it's just taking the tape manufacturing business a while to
adjust. Industries change over time. The airline industry is
going through a major upheaval right now because it switched from
being a high-margin luxury thing to a cutthroat commodity business.
Efficient, no-frills airlines like Southwest are profitable, and
the traditional airlines are all struggling. Eventually they will
all adjust and the industry will stabilize again. The industry is
moving out of one phase and into the next, and it takes time for
them to adjust. Right now they're struggling (and filing bankruptcy),
but it doesn't mean air travel is going away.

It could be similar with analog tape. The old way of doing business
that Quantegy was operating under is no longer the best model,
apparently. But, perhaps some other model will spring up. Maybe
some small business will spring up and start doing low-volume,
high-quality tape. Or maybe 2 or 3 even smaller companies will
spring up and start competing with each other with slightly different
formulations or something. Or maybe some company that makes data
tape will figure out a way to make audio tape profitably as a side
thing. Or (more likely) some other thing that I haven't thought of
will happen...

- Logan
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 9:08:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:57:13 -0800, Bob Cain
<arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:

>Why does your followup line exclude most of the groups of
>which you asked this question?

It's another googoo troll. Wonderful.

Chris Hornbeck
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 9:32:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

That's a main problem. I have clients ask about autotune and can I fly this
in, etc., and I just tell them, fine, but take three minutes and do it again
and save yourself the hours of studio time.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

"Sean Conolly" <sjconolly_98@yaaho.com> wrote in message
news:D 3wNd.18383$qJ3.5825@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
> "Roger W. Norman" <rnorman@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:jbqdnd01ZovTz5vfRVn-tw@rcn.net...
> > And each has their time constraining demands or possibilities, such as
> > splicing tape for edits, or in digital, the desire to try every fricking
> > combination of tracks, multiple tracks, this edit, that edit, this plug,
> > that plug and in general basically refusing to make mixing decisions and
> > living with the overall strength of the song and it's performance.
>
> LOL!
>
> My bane is the urge to keep polishing a turd instead of just cutting new
> tracks.
>
> Sean
>
>
>
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:40:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

"Ayn Marx" <mdhjwh@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message ...

> Why did this drivel show up on Aus.Hi-Fi?


Gee... I dunno, WHY ?
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:42:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>"rick hollett" wrote ...
>> Analog has had a long time to mature, whereas digital is
>> the bright, quirky, young upstart. I wouldn't write the former
>> off just yet, but it's decades are numbered. e.g. better
>> response = better sound.
>
>With the media suppliers dead or on life-support, do you think
>analog has even ONE decade left?

Well, I've probably got a decade worth of media stored up...
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 11:42:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cu7r7m$pr2$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>>"rick hollett" wrote ...
>>> Analog has had a long time to mature, whereas digital is
>>> the bright, quirky, young upstart. I wouldn't write the former
>>> off just yet, but it's decades are numbered. e.g. better
>>> response = better sound.
>>
>>With the media suppliers dead or on life-support, do you think
>>analog has even ONE decade left?
>
> Well, I've probably got a decade worth of media stored up...

What about specialized parts like heads, pinch rollers, etc?
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 12:32:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Richard Crowley (rcrowley7@xprt.net) wrote:
: "rick hollett" wrote ...
: > Analog has had a long time to mature, whereas digital is
: > the bright, quirky, young upstart. I wouldn't write the former
: > off just yet, but it's decades are numbered. e.g. better
: > response = better sound.

: With the media suppliers dead or on life-support, do you think
: analog has even ONE decade left?

Tube amps are still being made.

Old tape decks work well and cost very little these days and can accept
multiple inputs (like 8 inputs at a time, while most inexpensive digital
recorders accept only two inputs). Tape decks will wear out mechanically,
but that may not be a problem for a typical hobbyist with a good deck for
a long long time, much longer than 10 years.

Low tech things are often easier to do unplanned things with. For example,
I often play 33 rpm records at 45. You can't do that with a CD player.

With a digital device you only get to do the things that people have
thought about and put into the software. The people who made tape decks
didn't plan on people playing the tapes backwards, or looping tape from
one deck to another to get long delays. Those things are now standard
effects because someone used the equipment in unexpected ways, but to do
novel things with digital recording you have to have a computer and be a
programmer, otherwise you're stuck with what you've got.

I'll admit though that there aren't that many things I can think I want to
do with a tape deck that aren't available as effects now.

--

This space not for rent.
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:12:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

You should be able to make a killing on Ebay then, when the tapes are hard
to find. Only joking

Rollasoc
http://www.hairthieves.com


"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cu7r7m$pr2$1@panix2.panix.com...
> Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
> >"rick hollett" wrote ...
> >> Analog has had a long time to mature, whereas digital is
> >> the bright, quirky, young upstart. I wouldn't write the former
> >> off just yet, but it's decades are numbered. e.g. better
> >> response = better sound.
> >
> >With the media suppliers dead or on life-support, do you think
> >analog has even ONE decade left?
>
> Well, I've probably got a decade worth of media stored up...
> --scott
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:12:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Just get yourself one new reel of 2"-

What someof my clients do regarding analog is to record to our Studer, when
the song is done, dump to ProTools
(HD 96K, but sometimes even 44/24, not perfect but still keeping the overall
characteristics)
then record over the reel for the second tune, dump, etc. Enjoy the
flexibility of editing in PT, then output tracks individually through
console, mixing in analog path with hardware outboard gear.

I know I'll be assailed by some for condoning this, pummelled with technical
specs I am well aware of, but for the most part, it is a way to get
"that sound" while having the obvious benefits of DAW editing, and keeping
down what could be astronomical tape costs.

Yes, eventually you will have to get another reel.Your analog machine must
be in perfect condition and alignment. Not a perfect world, but works well.

best to all,

Dave Kowalski
Bennett Studios
http://www.bennettstudios.com







"Rollasoc" <hotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:EzLNd.16467$68.10206@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> You should be able to make a killing on Ebay then, when the tapes are hard
> to find. Only joking
>
> Rollasoc
> http://www.hairthieves.com
>
>
> "Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:cu7r7m$pr2$1@panix2.panix.com...
>> Richard Crowley <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote:
>> >"rick hollett" wrote ...
>> >> Analog has had a long time to mature, whereas digital is
>> >> the bright, quirky, young upstart. I wouldn't write the former
>> >> off just yet, but it's decades are numbered. e.g. better
>> >> response = better sound.
>> >
>> >With the media suppliers dead or on life-support, do you think
>> >analog has even ONE decade left?
>>
>> Well, I've probably got a decade worth of media stored up...
>> --scott
>> --
>> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
>
>
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 6:12:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Rollasoc <hotmail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You should be able to make a killing on Ebay then, when the tapes are hard
>to find. Only joking

Currently the prices for old media in bad condition are going insanely
high on Ebay. And I am considering unloading some stuff and making a
killing indeed.

I think as soon as the word on the ATR Services and RMI materials gets out
that the prices will drop back down to something reasonable, so if you have
old junk tape in the closets now is the time to put them up for auction.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 7, 2005 7:32:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

Warning: This is a demise-of-Usenet-and-can-we-save-it rant.

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:08:56 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
<chrishornbeckremovethis@att.net> wrote:

>On Sun, 06 Feb 2005 13:57:13 -0800, Bob Cain
><arcane@arcanemethods.com> wrote:
>
>>Why does your followup line exclude most of the groups of
>>which you asked this question?
>
>It's another googoo troll. Wonderful.

Okay, you made me look at its other posts, and they're ugly:

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?safe=images&as_uau...

Don't say I didn't warn you, there are two "Best ____ for under
____" posts, and all posts have followups set to the photo newsgroups.
Really nasty stuff...

If more people would report such things to the (ir)responsible
parties, I think this sort of thing could be reduced. Is anyone
interested?

Google groups appears to be a major offendor. Posting through google
is valuable resource when NNTP is unavailable, but in the last year or
so the vast majority of posts through it have been some sort of abuse.
It might be effective to add individual executives at google to the
report list as well as the groups-abuse@google.com auto-nak address.
It's an "attractive nuisance."

I've considered filtering on certain domains and such, OTOH I
recently saw what appeared to be a totally legit post sent through
dizum.com. I could hardly believe it.

>Chris Hornbeck

-----
http://mindspring.com/~benbradley
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 9:49:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

"Malcolm Dew-Jones" <yf110@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
news:4207a61b@news.victoria.tc.ca

> Low tech things are often easier to do unplanned things with. For
> example, I often play 33 rpm records at 45.

Really? You've got me interested. Why?

>You can't do that with a CD player.

You can do it with the right CD player. You can do it in the digital domain
with a number of different kinds of DAW software. I can do it with
Audition, for example.

> With a digital device you only get to do the things that people have
> thought about and put into the software.

Not really. There's a lot of software that has the canonical operations
built in to do any number of things that the authors never thought of.

>The people who made tape
> decks didn't plan on people playing the tapes backwards, or looping
> tape from one deck to another to get long delays.

BTW, all of these are duck soup with most DAW software.

>Those things are
> now standard effects because someone used the equipment in unexpected
> ways, but to do novel things with digital recording you have to have
> a computer and be a programmer, otherwise you're stuck with what
> you've got.

The computers and the programmers have been around a long time, and have put
a wide variety of generaltized tools into their software packages.

> I'll admit though that there aren't that many things I can think I
> want to do with a tape deck that aren't available as effects now.

The inverse is probably more true.
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 9:49:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 06:49:52 -0500, Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Malcolm Dew-Jones" <yf110@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote in message
> news:4207a61b@news.victoria.tc.ca
>
>> Low tech things are often easier to do unplanned things with. For
>> example, I often play 33 rpm records at 45.
>
> Really? You've got me interested. Why?
>
>>You can't do that with a CD player.
>
> You can do it with the right CD player. You can do it in the digital domain
> with a number of different kinds of DAW software. I can do it with
> Audition, for example.
>
>> With a digital device you only get to do the things that people have
>> thought about and put into the software.
>
> Not really. There's a lot of software that has the canonical operations
> built in to do any number of things that the authors never thought of.
>
>>The people who made tape
>> decks didn't plan on people playing the tapes backwards, or looping
>> tape from one deck to another to get long delays.
>
> BTW, all of these are duck soup with most DAW software.
>
>>Those things are
>> now standard effects because someone used the equipment in unexpected
>> ways, but to do novel things with digital recording you have to have
>> a computer and be a programmer, otherwise you're stuck with what
>> you've got.
>
> The computers and the programmers have been around a long time, and have put
> a wide variety of generaltized tools into their software packages.
>
>> I'll admit though that there aren't that many things I can think I
>> want to do with a tape deck that aren't available as effects now.
>
> The inverse is probably more true.

I agree with the comments here. There is so much more you can do in a
digital world than you can in an analogue one. There are software
packages around that can pretty much duplicate anything you can do on an
analogue source, but you can do so much more digitally. You cna
effectively make a digital recording sound like a scratched record, speed
things up, slow them down, but more importantly you can chop bits out and
insert new bits, add effects digitally and also add noise envelopes and
volume filters etc. All this can be done very precisely with digital
where it is all a bit touch and go with analogue sources. Yu need to
explore the digital world a little more and you will find that you can do
just about anything you will ever need.

Mark
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 12:10:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.music.makers.synth.]
On 2005-02-06, Gary R. Hook <noway@nospammers.net> wrote:
> Lewis Lang wrote:
>> It used to be said that even though digital recording is cleaner and
>> has certain advantages like no generation loss, tape recording gives a
>> warmer sound. Some people listen to CDs and say that it does not sound
>> as good as a record. Does this still apply to modern day hard disk
>> recording vs 2 inch tape? Insights?
>
> 1) Digital provides a power that has taken time to master with respect
> to creating good-sounding recordings.
>
> 2) Analog tape can change sound through tape saturation in a way that
> we like. But there are other (digital) ways to record/create sound
> that we like. The trick is to work on finding them.
>
> 3) Tools in the hands of a hack will still result in junk. IMHO it
> is possible to create a quality sound on inexpensive digital
> equipment, but it takes skill, just like analog equipment use.
>
> 4) Quantegy, the last U.S. manufacturer of analog tape, announced
> their bankruptcy recently. Analog tape use has fallen off
> significantly in recent years, and will likely continue to do so.
>
> http://broadcastengineering.com/newsletters/bth/2005010...
>
> We'll all be using digital methods whether we like it or not. Better
> practice.

*clap* *clap*
great post. it is not easy to find a concise, short, and
reality-based answer on this topic nowadays. :) 

--
now all give tribute to g.c.coleman!
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 3:04:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

In article <pan.2005.02.08.04.48.46.739970@resourcepb.ncl.ac.uk>, Mark
Scott <mark@resourcepb.ncl.ac.uk> wrote:

> I agree with the comments here. There is so much more you can do in a
> digital world than you can in an analogue one.

The problem with digital isn't the technology, it's the way it's
applied. Back in the analogue days, engineers were very careful to
build their tracks efficiently and cleanly with lots of planning.
Today, there is more of a "lets try this and see what it does" sort of
approach. That can lead to inspiration, but it can also lead to a
muddled mess.

The biggest problem today is with the basic goals of recording. In the
60s, the goal was to create natural, realistic soundstages. Today, very
few are doing that, choosing instead to create weird close miked,
phasey, unreal acoustics that could never exist in the real world.
People who prefer the sound of analogue actually prefer the sound of
natural acoustics, not the sound of tape as opposed to digital.

See ya
Steve

--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:15:36 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.music.makers.synth.]
On 2005-02-07, Malcolm Dew-Jones <yf110@vtn1.victoria.tc.ca> wrote:

> Tube amps are still being made.

Especially guitar amps. Sure you can get crunchy overdrive tones with
a stomp box and a transistor amp, but it's a lot less fussy just to do
it with the tube amp. I know this is a matter of opinion, but I won't
part with my Fender Deluxe.

> Old tape decks work well and cost very little these days and can accept
> multiple inputs (like 8 inputs at a time, while most inexpensive digital
> recorders accept only two inputs).

You're comparing expensive multitrack tape recorders to inexpensive
digital recorders. I don't think I could get a 1/2" console for any
less than I have in my 8-channel DAW.

> With a digital device you only get to do the things that people have
> thought about and put into the software.

Software isn't all that hard to make or modify, contrary to what the
big developers want you to believe.

Doesn't anybody remember the freakin' 1980s when this whole idea of
"you have to be a computer programmer" didn't exist, and people, just
for the hobby of it, would write machine language programs? Not only
does nothing stop you from doing the same thing today, it's actually
easier to get into.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 12:27:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 21:04:28 +0100, Stephen Worth wrote:

> The problem with digital isn't the technology, it's the way it's
> applied. Back in the analogue days, engineers were very careful to build
> their tracks efficiently and cleanly with lots of planning. Today, there
> is more of a "lets try this and see what it does" sort of approach. That
> can lead to inspiration, but it can also lead to a muddled mess.
>
> The biggest problem today is with the basic goals of recording. In the
> 60s, the goal was to create natural, realistic soundstages. Today, very
> few are doing that, choosing instead to create weird close miked,
> phasey, unreal acoustics that could never exist in the real world.
> People who prefer the sound of analogue actually prefer the sound of
> natural acoustics, not the sound of tape as opposed to digital.

If you want to get a natural, realistic, sound, digital technology helps
a lot. But the problems are not in this technology. To get a good natural
sound you should work hard on room acoustics, microphone placement,
listening, etc.

One of the problems is that good digital electronics is not so expensive,
so manufacturers try to make money with gimmicks, special "vintage"
effects etc.

--
Chel van Gennip
Visit Serg van Gennip's site http://www.serg.vangennip.com
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:53:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

"Stephen Worth" <news@vintageip.com> wrote in message
news:080220051204284300%news@vintageip.com...

> The biggest problem today is with the basic goals of recording. In the
> 60s, the goal was to create natural, realistic soundstages. Today, very
> few are doing that, choosing instead to create weird close miked,
> phasey, unreal acoustics that could never exist in the real world.
> People who prefer the sound of analogue actually prefer the sound of
> natural acoustics, not the sound of tape as opposed to digital.

Crimson and Clover, over and over...
I am he as you are he as you are me and we are all together...
I look in the sky where an elephant's eye...was staring at me from a
bubble-gum tree...

Not everybody in the 60s was trying for natural sound.

Peace,
Paul
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 9:53:30 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

In article
<JriOd.177522$w62.128509@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, Paul
Stamler <pstamlerhell@pobox.com> wrote:

> Not everybody in the 60s was trying for natural sound.

I was referring to the records most people consider the best sounding
records ever made... Living Stereo, shaded dogs, etc.

See ya
Steve

--
*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
VIP RECORDS: Rare 78 rpm recordings on CD in great sound
20s Dance Bands - Swing - Opera - Classical - Vaudeville - Ragtime
FREE MP3s OF COMPLETE SONGS http://www.vintageip.com/records/
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 2:27:46 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Stephen Worth wrote:
> In article <pan.2005.02.08.04.48.46.739970@resourcepb.ncl.ac.uk>, Mark
> Scott <mark@resourcepb.ncl.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>I agree with the comments here. There is so much more you can do in a
>>digital world than you can in an analogue one.
>
>
> The problem with digital isn't the technology, it's the way it's
> applied. Back in the analogue days, engineers were very careful to
> build their tracks efficiently and cleanly with lots of planning.
> Today, there is more of a "lets try this and see what it does" sort of
> approach. That can lead to inspiration, but it can also lead to a
> muddled mess.
>
> The biggest problem today is with the basic goals of recording. In the
> 60s, the goal was to create natural, realistic soundstages. Today, very
> few are doing that, choosing instead to create weird close miked,
> phasey, unreal acoustics that could never exist in the real world.
> People who prefer the sound of analogue actually prefer the sound of
> natural acoustics, not the sound of tape as opposed to digital.
>
> See ya
> Steve
>
Yep, the problem with digital can be mostly attributed to the biological
units attached to them:) 

CD
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 9:11:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Digital is overal harder to use, much more time consuming and
confusing, the learning curve is far longer. Having to navigate through
four menues to roll off a little bass is not nearly as easy as reaching
for a knob right under your nose. It took me 10 minutes to get the hang
of my 388.
Anonymous
February 11, 2005 11:52:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Farmer Jim wrote:
> Digital is overal harder to use, much more time consuming and
> confusing, the learning curve is far longer. Having to navigate
through
> four menues to roll off a little bass is not nearly as easy as
reaching
> for a knob right under your nose. It took me 10 minutes to get the
hang
> of my 388.

That part is really easy with the right tools. I use a computer with
n-track (very low-cost multitrack software) and I can get just about
any EQ with a few mouse clicks and drags.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 3:13:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Farmer Jim <purtatoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Digital is overal harder to use, much more time consuming and
>confusing, the learning curve is far longer. Having to navigate through
>four menues to roll off a little bass is not nearly as easy as reaching
>for a knob right under your nose. It took me 10 minutes to get the hang
>of my 388.

That's not because it's digital. That's because it's badly-designed.

Most of the inexpensive digital gear today is like that, because features
are what sells, rather than usability. You'll find surprisingly enough
that the higher end digital gear tends to be much easier to use. And it
tends to be much less encumbered with features that you don't need, too.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
February 12, 2005 10:24:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

In article <1108174275.362873.252160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
Farmer Jim <purtatoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Digital is overal harder to use, much more time consuming and
>confusing, the learning curve is far longer. Having to navigate through
>four menues to roll off a little bass is not nearly as easy as reaching
>for a knob right under your nose. It took me 10 minutes to get the hang
>of my 388.

Oh come on. What did a Tascam 8 cost new? Adjusted for inflation, how
much is that now? Compare it to an equivalent digital recorder. For
that kind of bread I think you can put together a hell of a PC-based DAW
with a proper control surface, or at least you can have your pick of
standalone recorders. Many of those have a better user interface than
the Roland I think you're referring to.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 3:28:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

In article <1108183924.632487.63460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> jwvm@umich.edu writes:

> That part is really easy with the right tools. I use a computer with
> n-track (very low-cost multitrack software) and I can get just about
> any EQ with a few mouse clicks and drags.

For some of us, that's a few clicks and drags too many.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 4:16:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro (More info?)

>> Stamler <pstamlerh...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>> Not everybody in the 60s was trying for natural sound.

> I was referring to the records most people consider the best sounding

> records ever made... Living Stereo, shaded dogs, etc.

As opposed to junk like Sgt. Peppers, Electric Ladyland, etc? :>)

Actually, you're fairly correct pre-Peppers, but incorrect thereafter.

Hey analog fans! Somebody buy my MCI JH-24! It needs a good home.
I'm hitting the road and it won't fit in my backpack. I'll even throw
in a few reels of 1-pass 2" tape. Probably worth more than the machine
these days! :>)
Cheers, Rick.
Anonymous
February 12, 2005 9:49:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

<jwvm> wrote:

> I use a computer with
> n-track (very low-cost multitrack software) and I can get just about
> any EQ with a few mouse clicks and drags.

His point was that without the computer you just grab an EQ knob, which
is what happens when you reach for the mouse, nevermind the "few mouse
clicks and drags".

--
ha
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 2:02:07 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

In cool edit pro, you can pre set the tools for the composition and it will
default key, tempo, beat, etc. up to that index for the samples you're using
in wav format, (I take it). A freebee demo version of the program is
available now at Adobe. You can download it at their web site. I am using
an old demo version (registered on line) of the same program, (CEP or Cool
Edit Pro) Takes a bit to learn, but after you get loops figured out and
time stretch, then you should be well on your way. Another (freeware) is
Audacity. Google it. Not multi channel but thats just another step in a
mx, after all.

Cactus Jammies


Adobe Audition 1.5 tryout
Adobe Audition 1.5 T software is a professional audio editing
environment. Designed for demanding audio and video professionals, Adobe
Audition 1.5 offers advanced audio mixing, editing, and effects processing
capabilities. Its flexible workflow, combined with exceptional ease of use
and precise tools, gives you the power to create rich, nuanced audio of the
highest possible quality.

The Adobe Audition 1.5 tryout includes all the features of the
full version with the exception of the trial version of discWelder BRONZE
from Minnetonka Audio Software, sample sessions, and more than 5,000
royalty-free loops. The Adobe Audition 1.5 tryout expires 30 days from the
first time you open the application.

Download Windows version - 47.6MB




Get more information about Adobe Audition.


Cactus Jammies

"Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
news:znr1108216200k@trad...
>
> In article <1108183924.632487.63460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> jwvm@umich.edu writes:
>
>> That part is really easy with the right tools. I use a computer with
>> n-track (very low-cost multitrack software) and I can get just about
>> any EQ with a few mouse clicks and drags.
>
> For some of us, that's a few clicks and drags too many.
>
> --
> I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 13, 2005 4:26:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

I popped for Cakewalk Sonar and a copy of Reason. It was a one-time purchase
and business write off.

The money's in the learning curve of the use of the software, as I have
painfully learned over the years in database programming. I'm sticking with
M.S. Access, not because it's so great, but I am very proficient in it and
can get the job done.

Goldtop

"Cactus Jammies" <not@joshuatree.nemor> wrote in message
news:p sGPd.50774$L_3.39606@clgrps13...
> In cool edit pro, you can pre set the tools for the composition and it
will
> default key, tempo, beat, etc. up to that index for the samples you're
using
> in wav format, (I take it). A freebee demo version of the program is
> available now at Adobe. You can download it at their web site. I am
using
> an old demo version (registered on line) of the same program, (CEP or Cool
> Edit Pro) Takes a bit to learn, but after you get loops figured out and
> time stretch, then you should be well on your way. Another (freeware) is
> Audacity. Google it. Not multi channel but thats just another step in a
> mx, after all.
>
> Cactus Jammies
>
>
> Adobe Audition 1.5 tryout
> Adobe Audition 1.5 T software is a professional audio editing
> environment. Designed for demanding audio and video professionals, Adobe
> Audition 1.5 offers advanced audio mixing, editing, and effects processing
> capabilities. Its flexible workflow, combined with exceptional ease of use
> and precise tools, gives you the power to create rich, nuanced audio of
the
> highest possible quality.
>
> The Adobe Audition 1.5 tryout includes all the features of the
> full version with the exception of the trial version of discWelder BRONZE
> from Minnetonka Audio Software, sample sessions, and more than 5,000
> royalty-free loops. The Adobe Audition 1.5 tryout expires 30 days from the
> first time you open the application.
>
> Download Windows version - 47.6MB
>
>
>
>
> Get more information about Adobe Audition.
>
>
> Cactus Jammies
>
> "Mike Rivers" <mrivers@d-and-d.com> wrote in message
> news:znr1108216200k@trad...
> >
> > In article <1108183924.632487.63460@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
> > jwvm@umich.edu writes:
> >
> >> That part is really easy with the right tools. I use a computer with
> >> n-track (very low-cost multitrack software) and I can get just about
> >> any EQ with a few mouse clicks and drags.
> >
> > For some of us, that's a few clicks and drags too many.
> >
> > --
> > I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
> > However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
> > lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
> > you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
> > and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
>
>
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 1:13:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

"Goldtop 71" <mjacobsen@cox.net> wrote in message
news:HEPPd.25442$6u.964@fed1read02...
>I popped for Cakewalk Sonar and a copy of Reason. It was a one-time purchase
> and business write off.
>
> The money's in the learning curve of the use of the software, as I have
> painfully learned over the years in database programming. I'm sticking with
> M.S. Access, not because it's so great, but I am very proficient in it and
> can get the job done.
>
> Goldtop


This is the problem with software used for a potentially complicated and/or
involved task, how to simplify the interface without sacrificing the ability to
easily and quickly apply the most used tools. And music production can be very
easy or very hard and everything in-between. I suppose you can have different
versions of the same software, but the upkeep means more costs for the
manufacturer.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 11:34:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

james wrote:
> In article <1108174275.362873.252160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> Farmer Jim <purtatoe@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >Digital is overal harder to use, much more time consuming and
> >confusing, the learning curve is far longer. Having to navigate
through
> >four menues to roll off a little bass is not nearly as easy as
reaching
> >for a knob right under your nose. It took me 10 minutes to get the
hang
> >of my 388.
>
> Oh come on. What did a Tascam 8 cost new? Adjusted for inflation,
how
> much is that now? Compare it to an equivalent digital recorder. For

> that kind of bread I think you can put together a hell of a PC-based
DAW
> with a proper control surface, or at least you can have your pick of
> standalone recorders. Many of those have a better user interface
than
> the Roland I think you're referring to.

You lost me. I'm referring to the tascam 388 7" reel to reel, circa
90s. I've owned several digital recorders, including a BOSS BR1180 (not
even in the same league) and a $2,700 (street price) Yamaha AW4416
which I sold my old 388 to help pay for, what a mistake that was (I
bought another one 6 months later). The Yamaha was decent, although
extremely time consuming but the end result was nowhere near as good as
I get with my 388. Sure you get some noise with the 388, but the
overall quality is far better, imo and the ease of use.. well, even
Homer Simpson could figure it out in 30 minutes. Until tape can no
longer be had, I'll stick with my 388.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 12:32:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

David Nakamoto <res07oeg@verizon.net> wrote:
>"Goldtop 71" <mjacobsen@cox.net> wrote in message
>>I popped for Cakewalk Sonar and a copy of Reason. It was a one-time purchase
>> and business write off.
>>
>> The money's in the learning curve of the use of the software, as I have
>> painfully learned over the years in database programming. I'm sticking with
>> M.S. Access, not because it's so great, but I am very proficient in it and
>> can get the job done.
>
>This is the problem with software used for a potentially complicated and/or
>involved task, how to simplify the interface without sacrificing the ability to
>easily and quickly apply the most used tools. And music production can be very
>easy or very hard and everything in-between. I suppose you can have different
>versions of the same software, but the upkeep means more costs for the
>manufacturer.

I sat down at the Orban Audicy system without any experience doing
digital editing, just a lot of razor blade time, and within five minutes
I had no problem doing exactly what I wanted.

I sat down at Pro Tools and after a couple afternoons, I never really WAS
sure what was going on inside.

Don't tar all systems with the same brush.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 3:45:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

No wonder you had bad experiences. Stand-alone digital HD recorders are
really lame. You should get a load at a DAW software, that's where the
future is. I came from analog tape and have gone completely digital inside
my computer (plus some outboard & synths I don't intent to part from). Today
I use sawstudio and is a great piece of software.

But, if you feel analog has still a lot to offer to you (which btw it does),
you should stick with analog


"Farmer Jim" <purtatoe@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108398894.908761.76220@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> You lost me. I'm referring to the tascam 388 7" reel to reel, circa
> 90s. I've owned several digital recorders, including a BOSS BR1180 (not
> even in the same league) and a $2,700 (street price) Yamaha AW4416
> which I sold my old 388 to help pay for, what a mistake that was (I
> bought another one 6 months later). The Yamaha was decent, although
> extremely time consuming but the end result was nowhere near as good as
> I get with my 388. Sure you get some noise with the 388, but the
> overall quality is far better, imo and the ease of use.. well, even
> Homer Simpson could figure it out in 30 minutes. Until tape can no
> longer be had, I'll stick with my 388.
>
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:08:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

(hank alrich) wrote:
>His point was that without the computer you just grab an EQ knob, which
>is what happens when you reach for the mouse, nevermind the "few mouse
>clicks and drags".

How about using one of the MIDI "control surfaces" available ?
That way you have desktop knobs to tweak, and the mouse is just for
setting up prior to tracking.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 5:08:51 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

In article <4211ae98.494139937@News-East.newsfeeds.com> jshinal_REMOVE_THIS_PART@mindspring.com writes:

> How about using one of the MIDI "control surfaces" available ?
> That way you have desktop knobs to tweak, and the mouse is just for
> setting up prior to tracking.

Typically, they're designed like digital consoles - one rotary knob
and one fader per channel, maybe two rotary knobs and a couple of
buttons for things like mute and solo, but not much more. So you have
to first specify what the knob you're about to turn will do, and more
important, you have to remember to assign the knob before you turn it.
Othewise you'll probably mis-adjust something that you don't realize.

Just looking at this Mackie Onyx 1640 next to me here, I count 14
rotary knobs per channel (scratch the input trim knob that you'd
probably not use when mixing recorded DAW tracks). That's one per
function, no mistakes unless you're cross-eyed.


--
I'm really Mike Rivers (mrivers@d-and-d.com)
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me here: double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:28:59 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

Granted, all software developers are not alike and there is some very
"elegant" software out there not made by the big guys. Back in the old BBS
days I was a big fan of a very small company (one guy at home, actually)
called "Commo" that could actually be developed into a BBS it's script
language was so rich and powerful.

The guy wrote it in machine language and it was only 32K big!

I do music production as a potential business as Engineering is being phased
out in this country and needed a system with a large enough user base to be
sophisticated enough to interface with most other music software especially
Dxi and other peripheral doo dads.

Congrats on a small systems that meets your needs with a minimal learning
curve. May we all be so lucky.

Best regards,
Goldtop

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cuqcpl$f6k$1@panix2.panix.com...
> David Nakamoto <res07oeg@verizon.net> wrote:
> >"Goldtop 71" <mjacobsen@cox.net> wrote in message
> >>I popped for Cakewalk Sonar and a copy of Reason. It was a one-time
purchase
> >> and business write off.
> >>
> >> The money's in the learning curve of the use of the software, as I have
> >> painfully learned over the years in database programming. I'm sticking
with
> >> M.S. Access, not because it's so great, but I am very proficient in it
and
> >> can get the job done.
> >
> >This is the problem with software used for a potentially complicated
and/or
> >involved task, how to simplify the interface without sacrificing the
ability to
> >easily and quickly apply the most used tools. And music production can
be very
> >easy or very hard and everything in-between. I suppose you can have
different
> >versions of the same software, but the upkeep means more costs for the
> >manufacturer.
>
> I sat down at the Orban Audicy system without any experience doing
> digital editing, just a lot of razor blade time, and within five minutes
> I had no problem doing exactly what I wanted.
>
> I sat down at Pro Tools and after a couple afternoons, I never really WAS
> sure what was going on inside.
>
> Don't tar all systems with the same brush.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 8:35:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth (More info?)

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.music.makers.synth.]
On 2005-02-14, pedro itriago <73050.520nospam@compuserve.com> wrote:

> I use sawstudio and is a great piece of software.

It had better be -- it's the most expensive audio software I've found;
more than Nuendo or Sequoia.
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:24:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

You misread me, and in fact just proved my point. Some interfaces are easy to
use for certain people, and the opposite is true for other people and/or other
programs. Read carefully next time.
--
Sincerely,
--- Dave
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It don't mean a thing
unless it has that certain "je ne sais quoi"
Duke Ellington
----------------------------------------------------------------------

"Scott Dorsey" <kludge@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cuqcpl$f6k$1@panix2.panix.com...
> David Nakamoto <res07oeg@verizon.net> wrote:
>>"Goldtop 71" <mjacobsen@cox.net> wrote in message
>>>I popped for Cakewalk Sonar and a copy of Reason. It was a one-time purchase
>>> and business write off.
>>>
>>> The money's in the learning curve of the use of the software, as I have
>>> painfully learned over the years in database programming. I'm sticking with
>>> M.S. Access, not because it's so great, but I am very proficient in it and
>>> can get the job done.
>>
>>This is the problem with software used for a potentially complicated and/or
>>involved task, how to simplify the interface without sacrificing the ability
>>to
>>easily and quickly apply the most used tools. And music production can be
>>very
>>easy or very hard and everything in-between. I suppose you can have different
>>versions of the same software, but the upkeep means more costs for the
>>manufacturer.
>
> I sat down at the Orban Audicy system without any experience doing
> digital editing, just a lot of razor blade time, and within five minutes
> I had no problem doing exactly what I wanted.
>
> I sat down at Pro Tools and after a couple afternoons, I never really WAS
> sure what was going on inside.
>
> Don't tar all systems with the same brush.
> --scott
>
> --
> "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 9:24:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.audio.pro,rec.music.makers.synth,rec.music.makers.songwriting,rec.music.makers.guitar,rec.music.makers.bands (More info?)

David Nakamoto <res07oeg@verizon.net> wrote:
>You misread me, and in fact just proved my point. Some interfaces are easy to
>use for certain people, and the opposite is true for other people and/or other
>programs. Read carefully next time.

That's true. But by the same token, some interfaces are just plain bad.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."
!